Feature Articles0

LEADING IN THE FACE OF CONFLICTING EXPECTATIONS: CARING FOR THE NEEDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND OF THE ORGANIZATION

By Michael E. CafferkyPosted on
Time to Read:-words

 

Abstract: This paper explores the tension between caring for the needs of persons and caring for the needs of the organization. Biblical themes and contemporary scholarship are used as a lens through which to better understand this tension as it relates to true integrity. Suggestions are provided for integrating the concepts into leadership training.

 Keywords: Body of Christ, cognitive tension, conflicting goals, creation, covenant, environment, freedom, Golden Rule, immanence, incarnation, individual-community tension, integrity, interdependence, leadership education, paradox, political philosophy, responsibility, sacred,self-interest, transcendence, trinity, wholeness.

We often think of Christian leadership in terms of servant leadership and the related concept of stewardship. If viewed from a limited understanding of what it means to be stewards and servants, these ideas can easily be reduced to a simplistic formula of how to behave and what to say around other persons. This is all well and good until you place the Christian in the middle of leading an organization. We must face the brutal fact that at this point the question of what it means to be servants and stewards becomes a little murky and at times complicated. It raises the thorny issue of the nature of true integrity.

It is one thing to discuss in general the Scripture teachings about stewardship and service that are applicable to the role of a leader. It is quite another thing to consider how faith is integrated in the work of a leader when the situation is complicated and sometimes ambiguous, such as when the leader comes face to face with the reality that for each significant leadership principle, a plausible opposite and even contradictory principle for the same situation also exists and may be called for (Cafferky, 2007, 2012; Simon, 1946). For example, are we more effective as servants and stewards when we care for the needs of persons in and around our organizations? And, are we less effective when we care for the needs of the organization whose mission is to serve these and other persons outside the organization?

The purpose of this paper is to explore how the Christian leader can view the fundamental, universally experienced tension between caring for the needs of the person and caring for the needs of the organization. It is this tension point that is the sacred ground upon which all leaders unavoidably stand.

To explore this fundamental tension, the following points will be discussed:

  • The nature of organizational tensions
  • The individual-community tension
  • Relevant biblical themes
  • Secular approaches to managing tensions
  • Issues that Christian leaders face
  • Implications for leadership training

The Nature of Organizational Tensions

Scores of tensions are co-present in organizations (Cafferky, 2012). The tension between caring for the needs of the individual while also caring for the needs of the community or the group illustrates the interesting nature of these and other paradoxes (Aram, 1976; Cafferky, 2007; Langfred, 2000; Parsons & Shils, 1962; Smith & Berg, 1987). This tension is an example of a fundamental paradox that managers in all types of organizations face. It also is interesting since it offers a chance to consider how the Christian manager’s religious beliefs might be applied.

It is believed that the poles of these organizational tensions are interdependent opposites. Leadership actions that support one pole have a corresponding (and sometimes unintended) impact on the other pole since the two are interrelated. What adds to the difficulty is that these opposites appear to be inverse functions. One pole, if left to itself or emphasized over the other, sows the seeds of destruction of the other. Many organizational paradoxes are universal tensions that have existed for hundreds of years and continue to exist in all organizations, regardless of culture. Another observation is that many fundamental organizational tensions are inescapable and inherently unresolvable in favor of one pole or the other, and that attempting to do so would be destructive.

Individual-Community  Tension

To give legs to this abstract concept of the individual-community tension,1 consider a few examples.  

In Numbers 32:1-32 we have an interesting narrative of Moses being faced with the need to care for the desires of two tribes (Reuben and Gad) as well as the needs of the whole nation. If these two tribes settled on the east side of the Jordan River like they wanted to, they would have available some of the best grazing lands for their flocks and herds. They would gain this benefit at the expense of reducing the mutual support they could offer the rest of the nation. Being on the east side of the Jordan would geographically cut them off from the other tribes and they would be less able to help or be helped by the other tribes in common defense. In the end, Moses’ decision was that Reuben and Gad’s request to settle on the east side of the Jordan River would be granted but only on the condition that these two tribes would assist the other ten tribes first in securing their new homeland.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul discusses the importance of individual responsibility to the community (2 Thess. 3:6-15). Paul was a proponent of freedom in Christ (Rom. 6:18; Gal. 5:1). But freedom does not mean license to become a burden to the larger community of which the person is a part.

Consider a situation as simple as the company lunch room. To take care of some of the personal needs of employees, all employees have the privilege of using the room with its resources. At the same moment that any given person exercises this freedom in using the room, that person is expected to fulfill a responsibility in keeping the room clean for everyone in the organization. At the heart of this tension is that at the same time we have personal freedoms (to use the microwave) and group responsibilities (all should clean up after themselves). Though they are sometimes criticized for being “rule bound,” managers of all organizations build a system of constraints in the form of company rules, policies, and procedures as mechanisms for giving employees (and volunteers) a measure of freedom within organizational constraints.

An organization’s wage and benefit package is one way to manage the tension between individual interests and organizational interests. Contributions to retirement plans and the compensation bring together the individual’s financial interest and the organization’s need for a stable workforce (Aram, 1976, p. 14).

This individual-community tension occurs at the macro-, international- level, too. For example, one European country’s need to receive financial assistance from the European Union of countries must be weighed against the needs of all the countries in the region as well as countries in other regions which will likely be affected by an unsavory change in the financial stability of one country.

There are times when leaders require of subordinates to perform tasks that, while moral, are unpleasant. The leader can be courteous and caring in demeanor when delegating the tasks to persons. Nevertheless, in order for the organization to fulfill its mission, the tasks need to be done. Employees may disagree and even wave the flag of “unfairness” at the leader in an attempt to avoid having the tasks given to them. Leaders are sometimes in an unenviable position of having to listen to the concerns of employees but in the end still getting the task done.

Every leader has been faced with the challenge of giving individual team members freedom and caring for their individual needs (Johnson, 1996, pp. 56, 251). The more the leader emphasizes individual needs, the more likely persons are to become isolated from the group and more focused on their own goals and interests. Furthermore, the more individuals are the dominant concern, the more likely the whole team will begin to lose its central focus or common direction. Team support will start to suffer. Individual self-interest can turn into individual selfishness. But the opposite is also risky. Emphasizing team work and structuring the team to promote cohesion, solidarity, and support for organizational goals will require increased sacrifices on the part of each team member. The more connected the individuals become to the team, the more isolated they become from their personal needs and interests. Leaders who give all for the sake of the team or organization end up creating stability, as well as excessive conformity, staleness, loss of creativity, and group- think. Personal needs tend to be (or are at risk of being) neglected. Community self-interest can turn into group selfishness.

Scholarship on This Paradox

The tension of individual freedom and responsibility to the common good has been at the foundation of political philosophy discussions during the last three hundred years (Hobbes, 1660/1996; Locke, 1690/1823; Lukes, 1971; Milne, 1968; Rousseau, 1762/1913). Although this tension point appears to be at the root of the difference between a constitutional, free-market democratic approach and a centralized socialist approach to governing, the individual-common good question applies to more than just the level of the state (Koslowski, 2005). Hofstede’s (1984, 1993) research has raised our awareness regarding how different cultures view the individual-community tension (see also Ketcham, 1987; Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi, & Yoon, 1994). This tension exists in all social relationships: the family, dormitory room- mates, marriage, organizations, domestic society, the relationship between an organization and its community, and in the relationships among the nations of the world. It is at the root of many ethical challenges that contemporary organizations face (De George, 2006, pp. 10, 13). As such, this social paradox is a discussion relevant to organizational leaders (Amason, 1996; Aram, 1976, p. 3; Bouchikhi, 1998; Collins, 2001; Keidel, 1995; Lewis, 2000, p. 769; Smith & Berg, 1997).

In organizational literature, the inseparable connection between managing individual needs while managing the organizational needs to get tasks accomplished was recognized nearly a century ago by Henri Fayol. As Fayol put it in 1916, “two interests [general interest of the organization, personal interest of the individual] of a different order, but claiming equal respect, confront each other and means must be found to reconcile them. That represents one of the great difficulties of management” (Fayol, 1949, p. 26). Fayol believed that the natural human tendency is toward promoting individual interests rather than promoting the general interests of the organization. Thus, workers need constant supervision, firmness but fairness. Fayol’s assertion about the importance of this issue agrees with Charles Perrow (1986) who has called this the “basic and enduring problem for all organizational theory” (p. 66).

This belief has been echoed by other thinkers, too. Organizations are at the same time economic systems and social structures (Selznick, 1948). In order for the organization to succeed, the contradictory dimensions of both organizational control and individual consent must be in place. Selznick (1957) states that “within every association there is the same basic constitutional problem, the same need for an accommodative balance between fragmentary group interests and the aims of the whole, as exists in any polity” (p. 9). This tension is implicit (and at times explicit) in the writings of Argyris (1957, p. 66–74, 175–208), Barnard (1938), March and Simon (1993), and Simon (1997). More recently, the persistent nature of this tension is raised by Hamel (2007, p. 7).

The Scientific Management approach espoused by Frederick Taylor (1911) in handling this problem attempted to balance the strong need to constrain the autonomy of individual workers for the sake of the organizational goals. Later the Hawthorne studies revealed to scholars the importance of caring for the economic interests of the organization at the same time as caring for the individual social interests and the social meaning of work that workers bring to their tasks. Scientific management principles alone cannot solve the core problem of human collaboration (Mayo, 1933; Roethlisberger, 1941).

Max Weber’s celebrated approach to handling this problem was to create impersonal bureaucracies where policies and procedures guided individual behaviors toward achieving organizational goals (Weber, 1947). If individual workers believed that their personal needs were not being cared for, policies were in place directing the workers on how they should pursue a complaint.

An organization has requirements for its survival that are quite different from the needs of persons. Individuals can find their own needs met as the needs of the organization are being met. But sometimes the personal needs conflict with organizational needs (Aram, 1976; Argyris, 1957). A degree of individual self-interest is allowed among employees and volunteers. But when self-interested behaviors exceed or are divergent from organizational needs, organizational leaders will attempt to place limits on self-interested behavior. Likewise if the other extreme occurs, i.e., the organization self-interest becomes dominant at the expense of personal needs, persons will respond by attempting to limit the organization (e.g., stop giving, reduce effort and commitment, terminate employment or membership, end volunteer activities).

We can think of this cognitive tension as being self-imposed. Every person willingly joins an organization to work to fulfill vocational drives and for economic survival. Volunteers join nonprofit organizations to fulfill their needs for serving a cause greater than their own self-interest. In becoming an employee (or volunteer) the individual voluntarily gives up a measure of individuality in favor of pursuing the goals of the organization. The person is willing to submit to and cooperate with authority and as a result is willing to be organized according to the wishes of organizational leaders or negotiated among peers.

When a person joins an organization, an interesting independence- dependence relationship is established. To fully experience independence in the context of group life, one has to constantly be giving expression to one’s dependencies. “For only as reliable dependencies are established does interdependence emerge” (Smith & Berg, 1997, p. 142). It is as individual members come to depend upon each other that the group as a whole becomes a dependable entity to serve the greater good of society.

The same tension is implicit in the concept of organizational culture. In order for an organization to develop a strong culture, its leaders must require conformity to the shared organizational values (Pascale, 1985). At the same time, persons are intellectually and culturally opposed to manipulation for organizational purposes. We want all new employees to become socialized into the organizational values such that they internalize these values into their being-thinking-doing patterns. Yet we also value new employees who bring us new ways of being-thinking-doing that, if incorporated into the organization, would make it stronger. This challenge is important for the Christian leader who values human freedom—derived from the image of God at Creation—but also values the stewardship responsibility of watching out for the interests of the organization and its goals.

Relevant Biblical Themes

The idea of paradoxical tension is not new to Christians. The paradox of the Gospel teaches us that we are more sinful than we can ever imagine. Sin is revealed when our lives are placed in stark contrast with the love of God as expressed in His law and in the person and work of Jesus. In other words, it is God’s love that exposes us for what we truly are. Paradoxically, the very thing that exposes us for who we are is what heals us and sets us free from the burden it has revealed (Nash, 1994).

While there are many points of cognitive tension represented in Scripture, the tension of organizational leadership considered in this paper is not a subject that is explored per se in Scripture. Nevertheless, Scripture offers some insights that can guide our thinking. Three biblical themes and several corollary concepts need to be considered with respect to this tension point in leadership.

Creation

Creation theology has an interesting perspective to offer. The Scripture message that “it is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18) indicates the importance of the person’s interdependent relationship with community. We are all our brother’s keepers (Gen. 4:2–9). Just the same, Adam and Eve each were created with a degree of autonomy, persons with the freedom to make choices.

It is at Creation that we first see the biblical teaching on wholeness (Berkof, 1941, p. 192; Hoeksema, 1966, p. 199). But wholeness by nature is not complete until it is seen as individual and communal and environmental. We were created free and responsible to the greater community and to God. It is at Creation (before sin) that we see established the inseparability of the individual from community. Satan’s lie, in part, was that humans would be able to survive as completely autonomous beings living apart from the Creation community. He implied that individual behavior has no effect on the social group. This tension reveals the beauty of the social world created by a loving God who values complex social relationships. Although this social-structure work of art is more abstract than the beauty inherent in physical creation, the structure of social relationships is no less stunning when its full significance settles into the mind.

God gives leaders the privilege of continually standing in the presence of complex social relationships. At the moments when the individual- community tension is acute, leaders may not at first see the beauty of God’s Creation. As they become open to experiencing God at work in their life as a leader in the midst of these tensions, they will come to appreciate the inherent beauty of preserving both individual needs and community needs. As the leader in humility repeatedly helps a community work through this tension, the work of Creation continues as together the community participates as co-workers with God in providential behalf of all of God’s Creation.

Covenant Theology

Another interesting perspective is biblical covenant theology. If Christians are to use the covenant model in their leadership, we find   that the biblical covenants were both corporate and individualistic (Robertson, 1980, pp. 280-300). If either pole is left out of the picture or diminished, the entire experience as a child of God could be undermined. If the covenant is viewed as primarily between God and the community, the Christian organizational leader will attempt to model this and will likely manage the individual-community tension in favor of the organization and its goals. But if the locus of the covenant is with the individual, the leader may likely manage the tension in favor of individual interests subordinating the interests of the organization to the interests of persons (Novak, 2000, p. 78).

Incarnation Theology

A third biblical theme relevant in this discussion is incarnation theology. As Philippians 2 states, the incarnation is a model of human relationships:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus. (Phil. 2:3-5, New American Standard Bible) The person of Christ being fully human and at the same time fully divine is inseparable from the covenantal mediatorial work relationship He took on by coming to this earth. Here the covenantal Messiah engages humanity in a self-imposed humility as a servant toward both the divinity and humanity (see Figure 1.1).

Appropriately applied to the work of leaders, we see that the Christian leader is part of the community like any other person in the group. As such the leader has personal interests as well as communal interests, like any other member. However, in following Christ’s model, the leader will completely identify with the individual follower who expresses a particular need at the same time as fully identifying with the community, humbling herself toward both the individual and the community as a servant.

Only in this broader context of covenant and incarnation can true servant leadership be fully understood. The leader is truly a covenantal mediator, embracing both individuals and the social group and being a servant not only to persons (the most common understanding of servant leadership) but also to the group and its needs (see Figure 1.2).

Corollary Teachings From the Bible

As Griffiths (1984, pp. 53-55) has pointed out, the doctrine of the Trinity can also be seen as a biblical model of the individual-community interdependence. The Apostle Paul’s metaphor of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12) is another illustration of the relationship between individuals and the church. Sire (1990, pp. 25, 58-59, 64-67) sees in Paul’s writings the individual and communal connections. Leadership is shared among many people in the faith community. It is not only the elders and deacons who serve. Many others have also been given gifts that are useful for the faith community. Each one with his or her spiritual gift will be used by the faith community in some leadership capacity. Sire makes this comment on 1 Corinthians 12:

[The] Christian world view avoids the fatal traps of both individualism and collectivism. It declares from the outset that each of us is unique and in the image of God, but that the God in whose image we are made is communal. (p. 64)

The chief gift (and the greatest need) for leaders is wisdom. Wisdom for all of life but especially the wisdom needed for successful leading is a gift from God received by listening to the community around the leader. It is one of the most highly prized of all virtues, not only because it leads to material success but also because it leads to successful living all around (Eccl. 7:12; Prov. 19:20).

New Testament teachings related to the work of a leader also offer some important insights regarding the individual-community tension. Whoever desires to be a leader of a group will be a servant to others (Matt. 20:20-28; Mark 9:35-37). In the Golden Rule of conduct—do unto others as you would have them do unto you (Matt. 7:12)—and in the second Great Commandment—love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39)— personal behavior is in the context of the relationships with a larger group.

Secular Approaches to Managing Tension

Various approaches to managing paradoxical tensions have been considered by scholars. Johnson (1996) and Smith and Berg (1997) portray the management challenge as one of facing the paradox head on. Johnson recommends that the manager involve the members of the organization (or team) in dialog so that the discussion can become a learning process. Smith and Berg recommend confronting paradoxes, since ignoring them or attempting to resolve them ultimately will fail.

Clegg, da Cunha, & e Cunha (2002) see three standard approaches to managing leadership tensions. The first approach is to attempt to eliminate the opposites. Here the leader chooses between the opposite poles. This is the simplicity approach that discounts the relationship between the two opposites. Besides the belief that eliminating the tension is impossible, attempting to eliminate the paradox removes one of the most important forces in the organization to keep all the members “in a continuous awareness” (p. 487). This can be destructive.

A second approach is to attempt to strike a balance through compromise between the opposite poles. This approach assumes that it is possible to create a mix from the two extremes. The problem with this approach is that opposites don’t easily lend themselves to balancing since each polar opposite requires full emphasis. Partially emphasizing one pole is an attempt at compromise that ultimately undermines both poles and result in destruction of the organization.

The third, more popular approach takes into account an assumption that both polar opposites require equal emphasis. With this the leadership task is to integrate the opposites through synthesis of on-going dynamic tension. Synthesis emerges in the specific situation when “both poles of a paradox are present simultaneously. It differs from a compromise because the latter results from forsaking part of each opposite whereas, in a synthesis, opposites are present in their full strength” (Clegg, da Cunha, & e Cunha, 2002, p. 494). In the idea of synthesis may be an element of truth supported by Scripture that guides the Christian leader. This will be considered in the discussion that follows.

Discussion

One can conclude from the findings of management and leadership scholarship confirmed by the biblical record that the fundamental individual-community tension exists. Attempting to untangle this fundamental tension of leadership may lead to conflicts and group paralysis (Smith & Berg, 1997), while attempting to preserve and even celebrate it offers hope for conflict resolution and successful, dynamic group life. For groups to effectively work together, individual group members must immerse themselves into rather than attempting to flee from the opposing forces inherent in their work. In addition, leaders who attempt to over- simplify or eliminate this paradox may be creating a default choice that undermines true service to both people and the organization.

Some Christians have an implicit belief that if a Christian trusts in God, he will be shown the way, not just any way, but God’s plan for the one best way. Belief in an omniscient, all-powerful God who also personally interacts and intervenes in the affairs of His human creatures requires for some the corresponding belief that God’s will must be a singular direction or specific command for every situation. This traditional belief among some Protestant denominations is the foundation for an important tension that the Christian leader (who understands how contingency theory works) faces on a day-to-day basis. In the extreme version of this belief, there is only one true contingency: God’s all-powerful, unerring will. It is the Christian’s responsibility to be open to receive the information contained in the revelation of God’s will and then to follow it. This belief comes into tension in the life of the Christian manager who sees the complexity of a situation as she evaluates several alternatives of action, any one of which might be morally and practically right.

If a Christian manager expects to discern God’s will in a specific situation, yet is unable to achieve this discernment in the midst of a particular situation, this leaves the Christian in a potentially precarious position of apparently either lacking faith or lacking the proper understanding of how to go about discerning God’s will. But if we allow for the possibility that God reveals His will to us through providential paradoxical situations in organizations, managing paradox as God would have the Christian to do might mean capturing the “enlightening potential” (Lewis, 2000, p. 763) of those paradoxes as they emerge. If the advice of organizational scholars can be relied upon, paradox management “entails exploring, rather than suppressing, tensions” (Lewis, 2000,  764). For the Christian this will be of Believing in the midst of this paradox that one can find God’s truth, the leader brings this cognitive tension into captivity to Christ only by preserving the integrity of both poles of the paradox (2 Cor. 10:5).

Paradoxically, God is both Immanent (Ps. 73:28) and Transcendent (Ps. 145:3). He reveals Himself through Scripture and through the person and work of Christ. Perhaps He also reveals Himself through nature in this social paradox established at Creation. When a Christian leader feels “caught” in the crucible of this paradox, not knowing immediately how to give due regard to both individual and organizational needs, it could be that both the Immanence and Transcendence of God is at work at that moment. On the one hand, the leader desires to know God’s will but on the surface God may not reveal His specific will (Transcendence). But on the other hand, if the leader stays with the cognitive tension and listens to the wisdom of others in the community, the situation itself may become a providential leading to understand God’s will (Immanence).

Leaders (and their followers) become obsessed with the product of a leadership decision or action. They cry out, “Decide and tell us your decision!” When faced with the individual-community cognitive tension, perhaps it is the community journey or process through the ambiguity that is just as important as the product of the decision. When the leader is given the opportunity from the organizational community to walk alone (yet in community) in dealing with a tension-filled decision, the leader may find God in the paradoxical still small voice (of aloneness) and in the storm (of the competing voices in the organization).

Another fundamental issue we must address is whether the demands of contradictory leadership behaviors undermine, have no effect on, or actually support integrity. On the surface and to the person who lacks leadership experience or who is unable to see beyond personal self- interests, the apparently contradictory behaviors of serving the needs of the individual and serving the needs of the organization can appear to be a sign of lack of integrity. But at a deeper level, once the issues of the tension are explored and once the person has the benefit of actual experience in dealing with the paradox, one might say that to simplify a situation, ignoring or glossing over the paradox, will undermine integrity. It might be debated whether integrity is merely an individual matter or both an individual and a communal matter. If the latter is true, to allow for simultaneous and apparently contradictory behaviors (though each one in itself is moral) may actually foster true integrity.

Implications  for  Leadership Training

Several implications derive from the review of this tension. First, leadership students might receive benefit from being exposed to the idea of paradox—especially the fundamental individual-community tension. Such exposure should naturally lead to consideration of the biblical expectations of what it means to be servants and stewards in society. This exposure can be in the form of classroom lectures and discussions. However, personal experience in leadership at the same time as classroom learning might give the best opportunity for learning the issues. If this is true, Christian leadership professors in higher education would do well to encourage (or require) students to take an active leadership role in an organization during the same semester as leadership concepts are learned in the classroom. Student leadership experiences that align with this and other paradoxes considered here can be explored in personal journals as well as during class discussions and personal mentoring. During these discussions the professor can ask the students to share their stories and to reflect on what this has taught them about leadership and about themselves. These discussions can then be used to reinforce the importance of listening to God, to individuals, and to the community when making a decision.2

Professors can remind students that the Christian leader who faces a paradoxical tension point is at an amazing place of sacred leadership space (cf. Holmes, 1985, p. 21; Sire, 1990, p. 17) of working alone on behalf of the community and paradoxically at the same time also working with and sharing leadership in the community through listening to the voices in the community. These ambiguous moments are “holy ground” locations, Sabbath-like times for Christian leadership worship (cf. Exod. 3:5-6; Josh. 5:14-15).

The definition of servant leadership should be revisited with the understanding of the tight individual-community interconnection in mind (cf. Greenleaf,3 1977). Organizational scholars and biblical theology (creation, covenant, incarnation) all suggest that individual and communal interests are inseparable. If this is true, servant leadership cannot be seen in a restricted way as applying only to serving the interests of individual members. Rather, to be truly servant leadership, organizational leadership must be a humble stewardship that serves the individual needs and the organizational needs, as well as environmental needs.

Numbers 32 can be used as a biblical case study. The professor can assign students to read just the first part of the story (Num. 32:1-15) and then discuss various options that Moses might use for resolving the situation. With each option evaluated students can consider both the long-term and the short-term impacts. At the end of the discussion students can be asked to read and evaluate the choice that Moses made (Num. 32:16-32).

Giving voice to the import of a paradoxical situation, recognizing both the needs of the individual and the needs of the community, helps community members continue to give their consent and support to the leader. Here is where visioning on a day-by-day basis is helpful to both the leader and the community. When we confine the discussion of visioning to the strategic planning process, we unintentionally leave out a major portion of the operational visioning work of the leader. Visioning is not just talking about the great things that will come in the future when a new strategic plan is implemented. Visioning is also about taking what is going on right now in the community in terms of the tension points and giving voice to both sets of needs. The professor can help students practice giving voice to the issues contained in this sacred space, taking situations from the students’ experiences and then showing the different ways in which the leader can talk about the situation to all involved. Students can role play and explore the advantages and disadvantages of creatively framing the vision in particular ways.

Paradoxes such as the one explored in this paper provide the professor an opportunity to teach Christ-centered leadership from a perspective students might not receive from religion classes. This will give students an opportunity to see an adult Christian explore their own personal challenges within Scripture. As the professor discusses personal experiences where this paradox was prominent, it provides an additional opportunity to explore the question, “Where is God during ambiguity?” The emerging paradox, revealing God’s will in the context of providential events in the organizational life of a community, provides the professor the opportunity to discuss Creation theology, covenant theology, the incarnation, providence, and related topics.

Professors also are classroom leaders. How lecturers care for both the individual needs of students in a course as well as the group needs models for students the leadership potential in this tension point. Preparation of the course syllabus, day-to-day course management, and classroom discipline all are opportunities for modeling these principles. When individual students come with requests, discussing the matter in terms of both individual needs and group needs with the student (or when appropriate, with the class) can help the student understand the point of tension that the professor is at and in so doing to walk in the shoes of the other class members.

Finally, this tension also offers an opportunity for the professor to explore the calling of the Christian leader with students. Each community needs a leader to whom the community gives or shares the power to make decisions on behalf of individuals and for the common good. This sacred space of decision-making illustrates an important element in the leader’s sacred calling. Here the leader is helping the whole community maintain integrity. It is here that the leader watches out for the needs of the organization whose mission is to serve others and at the same time watches out for the needs of the organizational members. When viewed in this way, the tasks of a leader appear far less glorious and far more humble. When the community asks a leader to carry this community burden of decision-making in the midst of ambiguity one mile, the Christian leader will with humility carry it two miles (Matt. 5:41).

Endnotes 

1Sometimes referred to simply as individual-collective, individual-group, and (in political philosophy) freedom-responsibility. For discussions of the historical development of individualism (which dominates American-style democracy), and how this tension is lived differently in the USA compared with an Asian country such as Japan, see Ketcham, R. (1987). Individualism and public life: A modern dilemma. New York: Basil Blackwell.
2 The Author has used this approach in two undergraduate leadership courses.
3 Like many of his time, Robert Greenleaf was an outspoken critic of organizations. His concept of servant leadership is focused primarily on serving individual members of the organization. His assumption seems to be that if you serve individuals, the organization and its needs will automatically be taken care of—an assumption that should be evaluated in light of the issues raised in this paper and in light of organization theory.

References

  1. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123-148.
  2. Aram, J. D. (1976). Dilemmas of administrative behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  3. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization: The conflict between system and the individual. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  4. Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  5. Berkof, L. (1941). Systematic theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
  6. Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: A constructivist perspective on organizations. Organization, 2, 217-232.
  7. Cafferky, M. E. (2007). Celebrating paradoxes of Christian leadership. The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership, 2(1), 3-19.
  8. Cafferky, M. E. (2012). Management: A faith-based perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
  9. Clegg, S., da Cunha, J. V., & e Cunha, M. P. (2002). Management paradoxes: A relational view. Human Relations, 55(5), 483-503.
  10. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
  11. De George, R. T. (2006). Business ethics (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  12. Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.
  13. Greenleaf, R. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
  14. Griffiths, B. (1984). The creation of wealth: A Christian’s case for capitalism. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  15. Hamel, G. (2007). The future of management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
  16. Hobbes, T. (1660/1996). The leviathan. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  17. Hoeksema, H. (1966). Reformed dogmatics. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Free Publishing Association.
  18. Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  19. Hofstede, G. H. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 7(1), 81-94.
  20. Holmes, A. (1985). The making of a Christian mind, a Christian world view & the academic enterprise. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  21. Johnson, B. (1996). Polarity management: Identifying and managing unsolvable problems. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.
  22. Keidel, R. W. (1995). Seeing organizational patterns: A new theory and language of organizational design. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
  23. Ketcham, R. (1987). Individualism and public life: A modern dilemma. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.
  24. Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, S. C., Choi, S. C., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Koslowski, P. (2005). The common good of the firm as the fiduciary duty of the manager. In N. Capaldi (Ed.), Business and religion: A clash of civilizations? (pp. 301-312). Salem, MA: M & M Scrivener Press.
  26. Langfred, C. W. (2000). The paradox of self management: Individual and group autonomy in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 563-585.
  27. Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760-776.
  28. Locke, J. (1690/1823). Concerning the true original extent and end of civil government. In The works of John Locke. The two treatises of government (Vol. V). London: W. Sharpe and Son.
  29. Lukes, S. (1971). The meanings of “individualism.” Journal of the History of Ideas, 32(1), 45-66.
  30. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
  31. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  32. Milne, A. J. M. (1968). Freedom and rights. New York, NY: Humanities Press.
  33. Nash, L. L. (1994). Believers in business. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
  34. Novak, D. (2000). Covenantal rights: A study in Jewish political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  35. Parsons, T., & Shils, E. A. (1962). Toward a general theory of action: Theoretical foundations for the social sciences. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  36. Pascale, R. T. (1985). The paradox of “corporate culture”: Reconciling ourselves to socialization. California Management Review, 27(2), 26-41.
  37. Perrow, C. (1986). Complex organizations: A critical essay. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  38. Robertson, O. P. (1980). The Christ of the covenants. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.
  39. Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). Management and morale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  40. Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1913). The social contract and discourses. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton.
  41. Selznick, P. (1948). Foundations of the theory of organizations. Sociological Review, 13, 25-35.
  42. Selznick, P. (1957). Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  43. Simon, H. A. (1946, Winter). The proverbs of administration. Public Administration Review, 6, 53-67.
  44. Simon, H. A. (1993). Strategy and organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 131-142.
  45. Sire, J. W. (1990). Discipleship of the mind: Learning to love God in the ways we think. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
  46. Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1997). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: New Lexington Press.
  47. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
  48. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. 

Michael E. Cafferky, D.B.A., M.Div., is Professor of Business & Management at Southern Adventist University in Collegedale, Tennessee. He is the author of the textbook Management: A Faith-Based Perspective, released by Pearson Education, Inc., in 2011. 

Leave a Reply